Diglossia as a
Sociolinguistic Situation

Harold F.
Schiffman South Asian Regional Studies University of Pennsylvania

Introduction

The sociolinguistic condition known as diglossia has
attracted wide attention since the publication of Ferguson's seminal article
(1959). Despite its occurrence in many non-western contexts, it is not simply a
phenomenon of exotic third-world cultures, but characterizes a number of
languages found in various parts of the world, including western Europe.

Power and Prestige.

Diglossic languages (and diglossic language situations) are
usually described as consisting of two (or more) varieties that coexist in a
speech community; the domains of linguistic behavior are parceled out in a kind
of complementary distribution. These domains are usually ranked in a kind of
hierarchy, from highly valued (H) to less valued (L); when the two varieties
are recognized (or tacitly accepted) as genetically related, the H domains are
usually the reserve of the more conservative form of the language, which is
usually the literary dialect if there is a written form. `Formal' domains such
as public speaking, religious texts and practice, education, and other
prestigious kinds of usage are dominated by the H norm; the L norm is used for
informal conversation, jokes, street and market, the telephone, and any other
domains (e.g. letter writing, cinema, television) not reserved for the H norm.
For diglossic situations involving two different (genetically unrelated)
linguistic codes, (sometimes referred to as `extended' diglossia) the one
dominating the H domains has the greater international prestige or is the
language of the local power elite or the dominant religious community and/or
its priesthood. In such cases the H-variety language is clearly the language of
the more powerful section of the society, however power is defined.

Thus in French Canada, English occupies the H-variety niche
because it has the greatest prestige in North America (and perhaps
internationally as well), its population even within Canada is numerically
greater than the community of French speakers, and its speech community is
economically dominant, both in English Canada and in French Canada. Conversely,
in France, French is the H-variety in diglossic situations involving other
languages or dialects, such as Breton or Alsatian, where these varieties are
only used as L-variety spoken vehicles in the home, on the street, in the
construction trades, etc.

It remains to be seen whether the same kind of imbalance of
power exhibited in non-genetic diglossia can be said to exist with regard to
classical or genetic diglossia. In many diglossic situations, only a minority
or elite control the H domain successfully, so those who know only L are at a
disadvantage.

Ferguson's original formulation.

Ferguson originally summarized diglossia (1959: 435) as
follows:

DIGLOSSIA is a
relatively stable language situation in which, in addition to the primary
dialects of the language (which may include a standard or regional standards),
there is a very divergent, highly codified (often grammatically more complex)
superposed variety, the vehicle of a large and respected body of written
literature, either of an earlier period or in another speech community, which
is learned largely by formal education and is used for most written and formal
spoken purposes but is not used by any section of the community for ordinary
conversation.

The notion that diglossia could also be used to
characterize other multilingual situations where the H and L varieties were not
genetically related, such as Sanskrit (as H) and Kannada (as L) in India, was
developed by Fishman (1967) and research on diglossias since have focused to a
great extent, though not entirely, on characterizing various kinds of extended diglossias.

Post-1959 research on diglossia has concentrated on a
number of variables and important questions: function, prestige, literary
heritage, acquisition, standardization, stability, grammar, lexicon, phonology,
the difference between diglossia and standard-with-dialects, extent of
distribution in space, time, and in various language families, and finally what
engenders diglossia and what conditions favor its development.

1.

Function. The
functional differentiation of discrepant varieties in a diglossia is
fundamental, thus distinguishing it from bilingualism. H and L are used for
different purposes, and native speakers of the community would find it odd
(even ludicrous, outrageous) if anyone used H in an L domain, or L in an H
domain.

2.

Prestige: in
most diglossias examined, H was more highly valued (had greater prestige) than
was L. The H variety is that of `great' literature, canonical religious texts,
ancient poetry, of public speaking, of pomp and circumstance. The L-variety is
felt to be less worthy, corrupt, `broken', vulgar, undignified, etc.

3.

Literary
Heritage: In most diglossic languages, the literature is all in H-variety; no
written uses of L exist, except for `dialect' poetry, advertising, or `low'
restricted genres. In
most diglossic languages, the H-variety is thought to be the language;
the L-variety is sometimes denied to exist, or is claimed to be only spoken by
lesser mortals (servants, women, children). In some traditions (e.g.
Shakespeare's plays), L-variety would be used to show certain characters as
rustic, comical, uneducated, etc.

4.

Acquisition:
L-variety is the variety learned first; it is the mother tongue, the language
of the home. H-variety is acquired through schooling. Where linguists would
therefore insist that the L-variety is primary, native scholars see only the
H-variety as the language.

5.

Standardization:
H is strictly standardized; grammars, dictionaries, canonical texts, etc. exist
for it, written by native grammarians. L is rarely standardized in the
traditional sense, or if grammars exist, are written by outsiders.

6.

Stability: Diglossias
are generally stable, persisting for centuries or even millennia. Occasionally
L-varieties gain domains and displace the H-variety, but H only displaces L if
H is the mother tongue of an elite, usually in a neighboring polity.

7.

Grammar: The
grammars of H are more complex than the grammars of L-variety. They have more
complex tense systems, gender systems, agreement, syntax than L-variety.

8.

Lexicon: Lexicon
is often somewhat shared, but generally there is differentiation; H has
vocabulary that L lacks, and vice-versa.

9.

Phonology: Two
kinds of systems are discerned. One is where H and L share the same
phonological elements, but H may have more complicated morphophonemics. Or, H
is a special subset of the L-variety inventory. (But speakers often fail to
keep the two systems separate.)

A second type is one where H has
contrasts that L lacks, systematically substituting some other phoneme for the
lacking contrast; but L may `borrow' elements as tatsamas, using the H-variety contrast in that particular item.

10.

Difference
between Diglossia and Standard-with-dialects. In diglossia, no-one speaks the H-variety as a mother tongue, only the L-variety. In the
Standard-with-dialects situation, some speakers speak H as a mother tongue,
while others speak L-varieties as a mother tongue and acquire H as a second
system.

11.

Distribution of
diglossia in language-families, space, and time. Diglossia is not limited to
any geographical area or language family, and diglossias have existed for
centuries or millennia (Arabic, South Asia). Most diglossias involve literacy,
but oral diglossias are conceivable.

12.

What engenders
diglossia and under what conditions.

(a)

Existence of an
ancient or prestigious literature, composed in the H-variety, which the
linguistic culture wishes to preserve as such.

(b)

Literacy is
usually a condition, but is usually restricted to a small elite. When conditions
require universal literacy in H, pedagogical problems ensue.

(c)

Diglossias do
not spring up overnight; they take time to develop

These three
factors, perhaps linked with religion, make diglossia extremely stable in
Arabic and other linguistic cultures such as South Asia.

Extended diglossia (Fishman 1967)

Given the extensive research on diglossia and the many
recent attempts to both refine and extend it, a review of some of these
studies, especially those pertaining to the socio-economic conditions in which
diglossic languages are usually embedded, seems to be warranted. It should be
noted, however, that diglossia is a gradient, variable phenomenon,
which cannot easily be boxed into an either-or, binary system of
categorization. And as Ferguson himself recently pointed out (Ferguson 1991, in
Hudson 1991a), his original formulation of diglossia was not meant to encompass all instances of multilingualism or functional differentiation of
languages. Thus the many attempts to `refine' or `extend' diglossia, or to
discern whether such and such is or is not a case of diglossia, may be barking
up the wrong tree.

Fishman (1967) introduced the notion that diglossia could
be extended to situations found in many societies where forms of two genetically
unrelated (or at least historically distant ) languages occupy the H and L niches, such that one of the languages (e.g. Latin in
medieval Europe), is used for religious, educational, literacy and other such
prestigious domains, while another language (in the case of medieval Europe,
the vernacular languages of that era) is rarely used for such purposes, being
only employed for more informal, primarily spoken domains.

Diglossia and Language Shift.

Diglossia has often been noted as a factor in language
shift, especially in speech communities where a minority language is in a
diglossic relationship with a majority language. Fishman (1967: 36) had
previously noted that

``[B]ilingualism
without diglossia tends to be transitional both in terms of the linguistic
repertoires of speech communities as well as in terms of the speech varieties
involved per se. Without separate though complementary norms and values to
establish and maintain functional separatism of the speech varieties, that
language or variety which is fortunate enough to be associated with the
predominant drift of social forces tends to displace the other(s)."

Classical and Extended Diglossia.

Various scholars have proposed terminologies for a taxonomy
of diglossias. For what here is referred to as `classical' (Ferguson 1959) and
`extended' (Fishman 1967) diglossia, Kloss has proposed the terms
`in-diglossia' (for the kind where the two varieties are closely related) and
`out-diglossia' (for situations where the two languages are unrelated or at
best distantly related) (Kloss, 1966: 138.) A classicist might prefer something
like `endo-diglossia' and `exo-diglossia', i.e. prefixes that fit better with
the original Greek roots of the terms. But it is clear to some researchers that
there are important differences in the dynamics of societies characterized by
the (at least) two basic kinds of diglossia. Fishman has also proposed a useful
distinction between `consensually different languages' and `consensual
dialects', since there is an unresolved debate as to whether Caribbean English
(for example, but any Creole language/dialect could be used) is in fact
genetically descended from English, i.e. is consensually a dialect of English,
or is consensually (agreed to be classified as) a separate language. This would
also be useful in situations found in South Asia, where some L-varieties are
associated with H-varieties that are not in fact their closest genetic
ancestor; for example, eastern varieties of Hindi (Bihari dialects, etc.) that
have long been noted to have descended from eastern apabhramsas but are
treated by their speakers as being dialects of standard Hindi; one could make
the case that Sri Lanka Tamil may also be more closely related to Malayalam
than it is to Tamil, but not in the minds of its speakers. And it seems to be
the case that Swiss German was once consensually agreed to be in a diglossic
hierarchy with Standard German, but that this consensus is now breaking down.

Scotton (1986) proposes the terms `narrow' for Ferguson's
1959 version of diglossia, and `broad' (or `diglossia extended') to refer to
Fishman's expansion of the discussion. According to Scotton, few truly
diglossic (in the 1959 sense) communities actually exist, because to meet the
criteria, two conditions must hold: ``(1) Everyone ...speaks the Low variety as
a mother tongue." and ``(2) The High variety is never used ...in informal
conversations." Unambiguous examples of these are Tamil, Lëtzebuergesch,
and Swiss German. Britto (1986) proposes the terms `Use-oriented' (or
diatypical) and `User-oriented' (or dialectal) diglossia to refer roughly to
the same dichotomy others have also attempted to define.

Fishman's 1980 taxonomy of ``kinds of linguistic
relationships between H's and L's" is worth stating in full:

(a) H as
classical, L as vernacular, the two being genetically related, e.g.
classical and vernacular Arabic, classical or classicized Greek (Katarevusa)
and demotiki, Latin and French among francophone scholars and clergy in earlier
centuries, classical and vernacular Tamil, classical and vernacular Sinhalese,
Sanscrit and Hindi, classical Mandarin and modern Pekinese, etc.

(b) H as
classical, L as vernacular, the two not being genetically related, e.g. Loshn koydesh (textual Hebrew/Aramaic) and Yiddish (Fishman, 1976) (or any
one of the several dozen other non-semitic Jewish L's, as long as the latter
operate in vernacular functions rather than in traditional literacy-related
ones (Weinreich, 1980).

(c) H as
written/formal-spoken and L as vernacular, the two being genetically unrelated
to each other; e.g. Spanish and GuaranĘ¬ in Paraguay (Rubin, 1972), English
(or French) and various vernaculars in post-colonial areas throughout the world
....

(d) H as
written/formal-spoken and L as vernacular, the two being genetically related to
each other. Here only significantly discrepant written/formal-spoken and
informal-spoken varieties will be admitted, such that without schooling the
written/formal-spoken cannot even be understood (otherwise every
dialect-standard situation in the world would qualify within this rubric), e.g.
High German and Swiss German, standard spoken Pekinese [Putonghua] and
Cantonese, Standard English and Caribbean Creole. (Fishman, 1980: 4).

These differences range beyond the obvious ones of genetic
vs. non-genetic relationship, and in fact have to do primarily with power
relationships in the societies characterized by them. Various scholars have
proposed that extended diglossia is usually unstable, unless certain conditions
having to do with power are not met. Classical diglossia, usually thought to be
more stable than extended diglossia, can also be shown to be unstable under
certain conditions. It may also be the case that the type of diglossia in
question may also itself change, i.e. a narrow kind of diglossia may be
replaced by a broad form without much overt awareness on the part of the speech
community.

Diglossia as a Continuum.

Classical Fergusonian genetic endo-diglossia (Fishman's (a)
and (d) types) characterizes a number of linguistic situations that have
already received much attention in the literature. Fishman distinguishes usefully
between classical and related and written/formal-spoken; he places Tamil in the
former situation, whereas one could just as easily put it in the latter; one
might say that Tamil actually has three norms (a classical, i.e. Sangam or Pandit style, modern Literary/formal-spoken, and educated colloquial, not to
mention local dialects). Between these styles there are shadings from one style
into another, i.e. it is possible to write modern Literary Tamil with an
archaic lexicon but with non-archaic grammar; it is also possible to swing in
the other direction and make modern LT more spoken, or to make educated
colloquial more literary in flavor, or more non-standardly colloquial. In any
event, though linguistic cultures think of diglossia as either-or, it is often
a gradient cline, with one variant shading into another.

Diglossia and the Linguistic Culture that maintains it.

Speech communities have belief systems about their
language--origin myths, beliefs about `good' and `bad' language, taboos,
shibboleths, and so on. These beliefs are part of the social conditions that
affect the maintenance and transmission of that language. Thus, the fact that a
language is diglossic is actually a feature of the linguistic culture of
the area where that language is used, rather than of the language per se. To
speak of a particular language as diglossic or not is at best imprecise, since
a language (e.g. English) as spoken in one part of the world may exhibit little
or no diglossia, while the same language (again using English as an example) as
used in a Caribbean creole community would have to be considered diglossic. Speakers of a particular language can not be characterized as diglossic; only their
behavior, or the behavior of the speech community can be considered diglossic.
Thus, beliefs and attitudes about the language condition the maintenance of
diglossia as a fact of linguistic culture. In the case of the Tamils, for
example, it is the set of beliefs about the antiquity and purity of Tamil that
unites all members of the linguistic culture in its resistance to any change in
the corpus or status of Tamil, by which of course is meant H-variety Tamil.
(Schiffman 1974: 127).

Diglossia and Literacy.

In a society where literacy is not
universal, not all speakers control the use of the school-imparted H-variety.
This does not mean that illiterates have the option of using the L variety in
H-variety domains; rather, the expectation is that they will remain silent rather than exhibit inappropriate linguistic norms. Their linguistic behavior
is in fact restricted to the L domains, and use of H domains is de facto the
monopoly of the educated few.

Shifting domains and Diglossia.

While diglossia as a fact of linguistic culture may be
stable, the distribution of domains reserved for one variety or other
can vary; the dominance of a particular domain by a particular variety can
shift, with one variety encroaching on domains previously restricted to
another. In Tamil, for example, the political speech was once restricted to the
domain of the H variety, but nowadays political speeches only begin and end in
H; in between, L variety predominates (probably as a mark of solidarity). In
journalism, especially in political cartoons, etc. one also sees a shift from H
to L in many linguistic cultures. In Alemannic Switzerland and some other
linguistic cultures, the development of television has opened up a domain that
has become almost exclusively that of the L variety, especially in `live'
interviews, talk shows, game shows, sports reporting, etc. where use of H would
seem stilted and unnatural.

On the other hand, social forces within a particular
linguistic culture can move to eliminate diglossia, as was the case when
medieval Latin was displaced during the Renaissance by various European
vernacular languages; diglossia is giving way in present-day Greece, where it
had held sway until a government decree ordained the shift from H (katharevousa)
to L ( demotiki) in many domains Diglossia was more extreme in pre-modern Bengali and Telugu than it is today,
as a result of movements led by prestigious writers (Tagore for Bengali) to
democratize access to literacy and education, and modernize their languages.
Latin held on in German linguistic culture until the early 18th century in a
number of restricted domains (scholarly writing, university lectures). When and
if diglossia is more or less eliminated, or made less extreme, by the choice of
a more modern colloquial norm we
would have to, by rights, speak of a kind of language shift. To ignore shift
when it takes place within a diglossic continuum would be to perpetuate the
notion that diglossia is in effect irrelevant.

Diglossia and Linguistic Areas.

If diglossia is an aspect of linguistic
culture, it may result from and be maintained by the existence of a linguistic
area (Emeneau 1956) in which diglossia is an areal feature as well as a feature
of a particular linguistic culture within the area. In South Asia, and in those
Southeast Asian linguistic cultures that use Indic writing systems, diglossia
seems to be a well-nigh inherent characteristic of the linguistic cultures, since there is a tendency to develop diglossia even in languages that
originally may have not exhibited a great degree of it. When Hindustani was
chosen as the national language of independent India, supposedly because of its
wide use as a lingua franca in the area, steps were immediately taken to
develop an H variety, highly Sanskritized in vocabulary, since the vernaculars
of Hindi then in existence seemed to be too `Low' for many citizens of the
country. Of course diglossicization as a value may vary from sub-culture to
sub-culture in the region, but it cannot be denied that the overall view in
South Asia and peninsular Southeast Asia is pro-diglossic.

Partial vs. Total Diglossia

Researchers have noted the situation where some speakers
control H but others have L as a mother tongue, and learn H as a second system.
Thus in some linguistic cultures, all speakers exhibit diglossic
behavior (i.e. use both H and L varieties in complementary distribution), while
in others, only some members of the society do. This
could be illustrated either by a society where everyone controls L, but only
some actively control H, or the opposite case where everyone speaks and writes
H, but some also control an L variety. We can refer to this dichotomy as total diglossia vs. partial diglossia. This factor is distinct from the
issue of whether diglossia is homogeneous or heterogeneous in the area (see
below ).

Homogeneous and heterogeneous diglossia.

Even if diglossia is total and universal, we must determine
whether the L norm is in fact one variety or more than one, i.e. is it homogeneous or heterogeneous. That is, is there an L variety that can be used for
communication throughout the linguistic culture and with all segments of the
speech community, such that no one is forced to resort to the H variety
(written formal/spoken) or some other language, as a lingua franca. In
Switzerland, no one L-variety is recognized as standard; speakers must learn to
accommodate their variety to those of others, since the use of H Schriftdeutsch is not considered appropriate between Swiss citizens (Schiffman 1991).

Diglossia and Power and Solidarity.

Brown and Gilman (1960) introduced the notion that the use
of certain pronouns (epitomized as T and V) can be an expression of power
and/or solidarity. Rubin (1972) extended the analogy of T and V pronouns to the
use of L and H varieties in Paraguay, a supposedly `bilingual' linguistic
culture in which the two languages, Spanish and GuaranĘ¬, are in an extended
diglossic relationship. In many of the linguistic cultures discussed here, the
use (or misuse) of L and H varieties also can raise some of these same issues.
Certainly the use of L where H is expected (or vice versa), constitutes a
violation of communicative competence rules. If an outsider speaks Hochdeutsch in Alemannic Switzerland, addresses a hotel clerk in Hindi in Madras, or begins
a conversation with a well-dressed stranger in AsunciĘ«n in GuaranĘ¬, these are
violations of social norms that stem from an inadequate understanding of the
linguistic culture.

Brown and Gilman (1960) established the notion that use of
T pronouns (the familiar, non-respect form) can have several social meanings.
Reciprocal use of T by equals expresses solidarity, but between non-equals the
giver of T is putting him/herself in a position of power, and the receiver is
expected to respond with V. Similarly, reciprocal V usage implies mutual
respect and social distance; any non-reciprocal use of these pronouns is an
expression of a differential of power.

As Rubin demonstrated, in diglossic situations the use of H
or L varieties in a given social exchange (as distinguished from societal
patterned usage as a whole) may be seen as the same kind of T/V situation. The
use of L may be an expression of solidarity and may not be offered to speakers
whose social position is superior or distant. Similarly H may be the only
variety appropriate in a given situation because the use of L would imply a
solidarity that is only reserved for members of a particular in-group. The use
of Black English by white speakers of American English in conversations with
African-Americans would probably be considered insulting unless individual
allowances had already been negotiated. The use of L-variety Tamil by
non-Indians is considered inappropriate by many educated Tamilians, who may
respond in H-variety Tamil or in English unless the use of L-variety has
already been negotiated (with explanations about the goals of the speaker and
disclaimers about intended slurs and put-downs.) The use of H-variety German in
Alemannic Switzerland conversely may be seen as a power-trip designed to put
the Swiss speaker at a disadvantage. The fact that the Hochdeutsch speaker may have no alternative L to use may be irrelevant; it certainly
explains the desire to switch to `neutral' English or French. In Luxembourg,
however, L-variety and its use are expressions of Lëtzebuergesch nationality and ethnic solidarity, so while Luxembourg nationals expect L from
all Luxembourgers, they switch readily to French or Hochdeutsch or
English with foreigners, with no expectation that they will or should be able
to speak L.